| 00:02 | <Philip`> | e.g. RDF does stuff like defining XMLLiteral with "The lexical space is the set of all strings ... for which encoding as UTF-8 yields exclusive Canonical XML" where they didn't even forget to map Canonical XML octet streams on Unicode strings, which is good |
| 00:02 | <Philip`> | whereas RDFa says "The value of the [XML literal] is a string created by serializing to text, all nodes that are descendants of the [current element], i.e., not including the element itself, and giving it a datatype of rdf:XMLLiteral." |
| 00:02 | <Philip`> | which is firstly using "value" incorrectly |
| 00:03 | <Philip`> | (It should be specifying the lexical form, not the value, because there's only a one-way mapping from lexical form to value, not the other way) |
| 00:03 | <Philip`> | (and then it sounds like it's "giving it [the value] a datatype" which is wrong because the literal has the datatype, not the value) |
| 00:04 | <Philip`> | and then it completely fails to say how you're meant to serialise the nodes |
| 00:17 | <drunknbass_work> | i know this isnt js but maybe someone could help me with something :P |
| 00:18 | <drunknbass_work> | please explain the proper way to call the function in http://pastie.org/626748 |
| 00:18 | <drunknbass_work> | inside of the setNeedsDisplay i this.ctx.clearRect(0, 0, this.ctx.width, this.ctx.height); |
| 00:18 | <Philip`> | Oh, also the RDFa errata says "For the avoidance of doubt, [that XMLLiteral stuff I quoted earlier] means in part that the current default namespace of each descendant element MUST also be included in the emitted XML literal." |
| 00:18 | <drunknbass_work> | which is wrong |
| 00:18 | <Philip`> | which does not avoid my doubt |
| 00:19 | <drunknbass_work> | do i wrap that inside of a {}? |
| 00:19 | <Philip`> | (What if the descendant elements don't use the default namespace at all?) |
| 00:20 | <Philip`> | drunknbass_work: What is wrong with that code? |
| 00:20 | <drunknbass_work> | Result of expression 'this.ctx.clearRect' [undefined] is not a function. |
| 00:21 | <drunknbass_work> | scope issue :/ |
| 00:21 | <drunknbass_work> | and my js skills are very shitty |
| 00:22 | <Philip`> | Sounds like this.ctx might not be a canvas context object |
| 00:22 | <Philip`> | Looks like this.ctx is a canvas object, not a canvas context object |
| 00:23 | <Philip`> | You probably want to use this.context2D.clearRect instead, and probably want to rename this.ctx to this.canvas |
| 00:23 | <drunknbass_work> | it is |
| 00:24 | <Philip`> | (clearRect is a 2D function, so you have to call it on the 2D canvas context) |
| 00:24 | <drunknbass_work> | oh heh |
| 00:24 | <drunknbass_work> | sorry |
| 00:25 | <drunknbass_work> | so my code was ok i just had a typo |
| 00:25 | <drunknbass_work> | lol |
| 00:27 | <Philip`> | Yes, your code was okay except for the part that was not okay :-p |
| 00:32 | <drunknbass_work> | yea i got it working |
| 00:32 | <drunknbass_work> | hopefully im not wasting my time creating a nice ui framework for canvas |
| 00:33 | <drunknbass_work> | that cake looked kinda cool but using it still required a shit load of code |
| 00:43 | <othermaciej> | I'm totally confused about the RDFa argument, about specifying in terms of DOM vs in terms of concrete textual syntax |
| 00:43 | <othermaciej> | because it seems like RDFa already defines its processing model in terms of DOM traversal |
| 00:44 | <othermaciej> | but two of the co-authors of the spec argue that it's actually defined in terms of source text, and that the syntax definition is sufficient for DOM-based implementations |
| 00:49 | <Philip`> | othermaciej: You're not alone |
| 00:50 | <othermaciej> | Philip`: it even very explicitly says in multiple places that it's defining things in terms of the DOM |
| 00:50 | <Hixie> | the whole discussion will become moot when they fix http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670 :-) |
| 00:51 | <hober> | Hixie: I wish |
| 00:56 | <Philip`> | othermaciej: The RDFa+HTML draft says that, and says RDFa is defined in some abstract tree model |
| 00:56 | <Philip`> | but the RDFa spec itself doesn't claim any such thing, if I remember correctly |
| 00:57 | <othermaciej> | Philip`: it does say that, look at the intro to section 5 |
| 00:58 | <othermaciej> | "Processing need not follow the DOM traversal technique outlined here, although the effect of following some other manner of processing must be the same as if the processing outlined here were followed. The processing model is explained using the idea of DOM traversal which makes it easier to describe (particularly in relation to the [evaluation context])." |
| 00:58 | <othermaciej> | and then it uses DOM concepts (like document object, child element, etc) all over, and even mentions the DOM explicitly a few more times |
| 00:58 | <othermaciej> | http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_model |
| 01:00 | <Philip`> | othermaciej: Ah, I just read your email that quoted those bits |
| 01:00 | Philip` | 's memory is clearly not great |
| 01:00 | <Philip`> | Unfortunately I often forget that my memory is not great :-( |
| 03:39 | masinter | thinks whatwg is more fun than tagmem |
| 06:27 | <heycam> | "I think the frustration level in this thread is rising to the point that we're not going to be able to make good progress if it continues much longer" |
| 06:27 | <heycam> | i thought the thread was getting right down to the issue with recent mails |
| 06:27 | <heycam> | very concrete |
| 06:29 | <othermaciej> | I agree |
| 06:29 | <othermaciej> | although I also think Manu's proposed actions are reasonable in light of the direction of the thread |
| 08:17 | <annevk2> | sicking, pong... |
| 08:18 | <annevk2> | hmm, for some reason my comments on rubys blog still need to be moderated |
| 08:18 | annevk2 | wonders what's up with that |
| 08:28 | <Lachy> | annevk2, rubys told me recently there was no moderation queue when I asked him why one of my comments never showed up there. |
| 08:31 | <annevk2> | weird |
| 08:31 | <annevk2> | my comment isn't that important anyway |
| 08:32 | <annevk2> | I was just wondering whether he was actually trying to flame HTML5 rather than the technique because it certainly seemed that way |
| 08:33 | <Philip`> | Which technique is that? |
| 08:35 | <Lachy> | oh no. Why is google chrome adopting the X-UA-Compatible nonsense?! |
| 08:36 | <Lachy> | oh, that's for google frame meant for use in IE http://blog.chromium.org/2009/09/introducing-google-chrome-frame.html |
| 08:36 | <annevk2> | Philip`, the <meta> hack to enable the Google plug-in |
| 08:37 | <Philip`> | annevk2: I thought his point when linking to HTML5 was primarily that Google's example said "equiv" instead of "http-equiv" |
| 08:37 | <Philip`> | so I'm not sure how that's interpreted as an attempt at flaming HTML5 |
| 08:39 | <Philip`> | and then Google incorrected their post again and then corrected again, but of course now thousands of people will blindly copy-and-paste the bogus markup from rubys's blog |
| 08:41 | <annevk2> | Philip`, most because of the comment |
| 08:42 | <annevk2> | mostly* |
| 08:43 | <annevk2> | but I guess I missed something |
| 08:43 | annevk2 | -> inbox |
| 08:45 | <Lachy> | I don't get how Google intend to get that plugin widely distributed among IE users. I don't understand why any user would choose to install the plugin, rather than switching to a better browser? |
| 08:47 | <Philip`> | Lachy: A user can install the plugin and Google's sites will suddenly become faster, without affecting compatibility with the rest of the web, and without requiring the user to switch between two browsers or even comprehend the concept of multiple browsers |
| 09:34 | <Micheil> | hmm.. morning all |
| 09:40 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: I don't understand the software installation policies at companies that insist on sticking to IE to see how that's supposed to work |
| 09:41 | <Micheil> | I don't have a problem with IE, as long as it's the latest version. |
| 09:42 | <hsivonen> | surely users who are permitted and willing to install new Web client software have already switched browsers |
| 09:43 | <Lachy> | there are many users who don't understand why IE is such a bad choice, and haven't experienced a browser with a better UI |
| 09:44 | <hsivonen> | or has Google deemed the IE UI to have such staying power that there are people who are willing to install software but not switch the whole browser? |
| 09:45 | <hsivonen> | is there some fundamental psychological difference to installing a plug-in that swaps out app internal and installing an app? |
| 09:45 | <Philip`> | There's also some people who actually *like* IE |
| 09:45 | <Philip`> | and have used other browsers and switched back to IE |
| 09:45 | <hsivonen> | to me, they seem like pretty similar things from corporate IT policy POV |
| 09:45 | <Lachy> | there are certainly people who are more comfortable with the IE UI for some reason and have difficulty switching. It's why there was so much effort put in in the early days of Firefox to create an IE theme for it to make it look as close as possible |
| 09:45 | hsivonen | has no data on teh popularity of the IE theme |
| 09:47 | <Lachy> | I don't know how popular it is these days. But when I was involved with SpreadFirefox years ago, there were quite a significant number of peoploe who managed to use it as a way to get users to switch |
| 09:47 | <Philip`> | It seems that switching browser (in a company with intranets and stuff) is a short-term compatibility nightmare, whereas installing plugins that switch the internals only a per-site opt-in basis is merely a long-term compatibility nightmare |
| 09:49 | <hsivonen> | the IE UI annoys me. particularly because ctrl-L doesn't do what I expect |
| 09:50 | <Philip`> | Alt-D works fine for that, I think |
| 09:50 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: but Alt-D is wrong and ctrl-L is right :-) |
| 09:51 | <Philip`> | but I always use alt-D + Tab to go to the search box, and IE sticks a refresh button in the tab order between those two, so I always start typing my search query into the refresh button |
| 09:51 | <Philip`> | s/IE/IE8/ |
| 09:51 | <Philip`> | (unless it was IE7?) |
| 09:52 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Opera supports both, so I think I just use whichever one is closest to whichever hand is closest to the keyboard |
| 10:08 | <annevk2> | the Offline Web Application section is nearly impossible to get through; geez |
| 10:10 | <Hixie> | how so? |
| 10:10 | <annevk2> | the algorithms are really hard to follow through |
| 10:13 | jgraham | assumes that the only use case for the Google thing is intranets that have IE-only webapps but where they don't want to deal with multiple browsers |
| 10:13 | <jgraham> | Because it would be confusing for users if some pages required one browser snd some required a different browser |
| 10:14 | <jgraham> | However there was a Gecko plugin that did the same thing many years ago and it never caught on so I don't forsee this being a huge sucess |
| 10:14 | <jgraham> | Mind you, Google will likely market it better |
| 10:14 | <Hixie> | annevk2: ah, yeah, it's pretty complicated |
| 10:16 | <annevk2> | Hixie, so why does fallback take precedence over online whitelist? |
| 10:16 | <Hixie> | otherwise fallback would be useless for anything in the online whitelist |
| 10:17 | <Hixie> | effectively fallback is the same as online whitelist, just with a fallback instead of falling back to network error |
| 10:17 | <Hixie> | iirc |
| 10:17 | <annevk2> | Hixie, e.g. consider FALLBACK: / /fallback.html NETWORK: /fetchme |
| 10:17 | <Hixie> | the NETWORK: /fetchme bit is pretty redundant in that iirc |
| 10:17 | <annevk2> | not if you want to get the network error |
| 10:18 | <Hixie> | also since you can wildcard the online whitelist, fallback has to come first |
| 10:18 | <annevk2> | afaict in "Changes to the networking model" a fetch is down for /fetchme but when it fails in some way you get /fallback.html instead |
| 10:18 | <Hixie> | right |
| 10:18 | <Hixie> | if you need to catch that case, just have a specific fallback you look for instead |
| 10:18 | <annevk2> | well the wildcard could be special cased |
| 10:19 | <Hixie> | FALLBACK: /fetchme /error.txt |
| 10:19 | <Hixie> | or just FALLBACK: /fetchme /fetchme?error |
| 10:19 | <annevk2> | it would prefer specific fallback over generic ones? |
| 10:19 | <Hixie> | it prefers the longest matching namespace iirc |
| 10:20 | <annevk2> | doesn't say so in changes to the networking model |
| 10:20 | <annevk2> | only talks about "if there's a prefix match" |
| 10:20 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I think it's interesting that the docs don't advertise a setting that'd turn the Chrome Frame on for all of Web zone while keeping the inner zones as IE |
| 10:20 | <Hixie> | annevk2: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#matching-a-fallback-namespace |
| 10:21 | <annevk2> | but that isn't referenced |
| 10:21 | <Hixie> | good point |
| 10:21 | <Hixie> | file a bug? |
| 10:21 | <Hixie> | it should reference it |
| 10:22 | hsivonen | wonders what kind of API Chrome Tab uses to hook into X-UA-Compatible |
| 10:22 | <hsivonen> | s/Tab/Frame/ |
| 10:22 | hsivonen | confuses IE Tab and Chrome Frame |
| 10:23 | <annevk2> | Hixie, why would you keep older application caches around btw? |
| 10:23 | <Hixie> | if you have multiple tabs open |
| 10:23 | <Hixie> | they might all be using different versions |
| 10:23 | <annevk2> | Hixie, ok, so only for open tabs |
| 10:23 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 10:23 | <annevk2> | Hixie, what if you remove an older version in one of the tabs |
| 10:24 | <annevk2> | (the user can supposedly do that through UI) |
| 10:25 | <Hixie> | i guess the tab switches back to not having a cache |
| 10:28 | <annevk2> | Hixie, so what is the point of NETWORK actually if you can simulate it with FALLBACK? |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | dunno, good point. hadn't really thought of it that way until just now. |
| 10:34 | <annevk2> | i'll post to the WHATWG list |
| 10:34 | <Hixie> | k thanks |
| 10:51 | <yatil> | Hi folks, I was just asked (in German) why there is no <rb> in HTML5, I guess that it is implicit as everything which is not <rt> or <rp> inside a <ruby> element has to be <rb>. Right? |
| 10:51 | <Hixie> | right |
| 10:52 | <yatil> | Thank you! |
| 10:54 | <Philip`> | jgraham: Google will market it by doing http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zs8MDWN106k/SrkGvMrT3LI/AAAAAAAAEQc/4zIh9XlFmH4/s400/cf-in-ie.PNG |
| 10:55 | <mookid> | can someone please explain what escalate |
| 10:55 | <mookid> | this to the chairs |
| 10:55 | <mookid> | means |
| 10:56 | <mookid> | will the chairs exert their wrath upon me if my escalation displeases them? |
| 10:56 | <mookid> | I am quite happy to argue with them about this too |
| 10:56 | <mookid> | it seems that I even disagree with TBL |
| 10:56 | <mookid> | which is pretty hillarious |
| 10:57 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: ^ |
| 10:57 | <othermaciej> | mookid: do you have a specific issue you would like to escalate? |
| 10:58 | <othermaciej> | or are you just asking in general? |
| 10:58 | <mookid> | Ian's interpretation of the HTTP spec |
| 10:58 | <mookid> | http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7697 |
| 10:58 | <mookid> | and the interpretation of the proposal |
| 10:59 | <mookid> | 'proposal' |
| 10:59 | <mookid> | :) |
| 10:59 | <othermaciej> | so you have a feature proposal |
| 10:59 | <othermaciej> | if you would like to escalate it so the whole Working Group considers it, you can ask for an issue to be made in the tracker |
| 10:59 | <othermaciej> | however |
| 11:00 | <othermaciej> | a) please don't do this unless you think there is a reasonable chance other people will agree with you - it consumes the whole Working Group's time to escalate an issue |
| 11:00 | <othermaciej> | b) if no one makes a concrete proposal for an alternate design in a timely manner, the chairs may summarily close the issue |
| 11:01 | <othermaciej> | one thing you may want to do is raise the idea on the public-html mailing list to see if anyone else is interested |
| 11:01 | <mookid> | the proposal is very simple - to alter the signifance of type attributes on link elements |
| 11:01 | <mookid> | so it is more specific in the HTML5 spec |
| 11:01 | <othermaciej> | if there isn't significant interest from others, then I would advise you not to escalate since it will just waste people's time |
| 11:02 | <mookid> | do you not fear tyranny of the majority? |
| 11:02 | <othermaciej> | I expect browsers are unlikely to implement a behavior for the type attribute that breaks backwards compat |
| 11:02 | <mookid> | everyone used to think the world was flat. |
| 11:03 | <othermaciej> | I did not say you should have majority support to escalate |
| 11:03 | <othermaciej> | just some nontrivial interest from at least one person besides you |
| 11:03 | <othermaciej> | because if only one person wants the change, then it is going to fail |
| 11:04 | <mookid> | hmm |
| 11:04 | <othermaciej> | because the Chairs are required to declare Working Group decisions based on consensus (not necessarily unanimity, but at least rough consensus), or failing that by majority vote of the group |
| 11:04 | <othermaciej> | but escalating to an issue costs both the Chairs and the Working Group time, so I advise you not to do it unless you can show at least some support for your position |
| 11:05 | <mookid> | fair enough |
| 11:06 | <mookid> | can we add a footnote into the spec that I thought that bit was wrong? |
| 11:06 | <mookid> | just so in 200 years time when they try to work out what went wrong |
| 11:06 | <mookid> | I can get some credit |
| 11:06 | <othermaciej> | you're welcome to publish your own document saying you think that part is wrong |
| 11:07 | <mookid> | can I do doctored pictures of wg members? |
| 11:07 | <othermaciej> | why would you do that? |
| 11:07 | <mookid> | jazz up the documentation |
| 11:08 | <mookid> | it's so boring |
| 11:08 | <mookid> | you should have themes for each page |
| 11:08 | <othermaciej> | there's certainly no working group rule regarding such things, but of course considerations of common courtesy and good taste still apply |
| 11:08 | <da3d> | Add cat pictures, that always works |
| 11:08 | <mookid> | yeah ok I'll look into it |
| 11:09 | <mookid> | god damn |
| 11:09 | <mookid> | the world isn't flat. |
| 11:09 | <mookid> | you people. |
| 11:15 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: does Wave not work in Opera? |
| 11:19 | <zcorpan> | what's the origin of a document.written document? |
| 11:24 | <Lachy> | zcorpan, isn't it the same as the origin of the script that wrote it? |
| 11:24 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: it's the origin it had before document.write() was called on it |
| 11:25 | <Hixie> | document.write() doesn't change the origin of a document |
| 11:25 | <Hixie> | document.open() might, i forget |
| 11:25 | <Hixie> | and d.write() calls d.open() |
| 11:29 | <zcorpan> | "Change the document's address to the first script's browsing context's active document's address." |
| 11:29 | <zcorpan> | not sure what that means |
| 11:30 | <zcorpan> | ok, here's a more direct question: why doesn't web workers work in the live dom viewer in firefox or chrome? |
| 11:31 | <zcorpan> | ah |
| 11:31 | <zcorpan> | now i get it |
| 11:31 | <zcorpan> | new Worker('?') points to the live dom viewer page |
| 11:31 | <zcorpan> | not the document.written page |
| 12:09 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: They probably never even bothered testing in Opera |
| 12:14 | Philip` | likes how http://googlewavedev.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-wave-in-internet-explorer.html says "HTML5 support is still far behind" which links to http://www.browserscope.org/?category=acid3 |
| 12:14 | <Philip`> | given that Acid3 doesn't actually test any of HTML5 |
| 12:48 | <Philip`> | Maybe RDFa really should have been defined in two documents, a generic RDFa Concepts one and an RDFa in XHTML Syntax one |
| 12:49 | <Philip`> | Currently those two parts seem to be confused and mixed together |
| 12:49 | <Dashiva> | At this point I'm tempted to say "or maybe zero documents" |
| 12:49 | <Philip`> | which causes problems when trying to write an RDFa in HTML Syntax one |
| 12:49 | <Philip`> | Dashiva: Well, that too |
| 12:51 | <Dashiva> | Every post seems to echo the same sentiment: "It doesn't matter, the implementations will magically do the right thing without the spec having to state what it is" |
| 12:51 | <Dashiva> | So if magic is making it work, why have a spec at all? |
| 13:00 | Dashiva | wonders if it's sometimes preferable to attribute to malice rather than ignorance to avoid making people look stupid |
| 13:02 | <Hixie> | http://damowmow.com/playground/htmlwg/chart.html |
| 13:04 | <annevk2> | you're supposed to be asleep :) |
| 13:04 | <annevk2> | graph seems to be heading in the right direction though |
| 13:05 | <Dashiva> | Big red box |
| 13:05 | <Dashiva> | Go lack of canvas text support! |
| 13:11 | <Philip`> | The automatic horizontal resizing of text to fit the maximum width looks disgusting |
| 13:11 | <Philip`> | (in Firefox 3.5) |
| 13:12 | <Philip`> | Also, I can't see the "closed" colour unless I move my head downwards by six inches |
| 13:14 | <Hixie> | you've said that before about #EEEEEE |
| 13:14 | <Hixie> | you need a better monitor |
| 13:15 | <jgraham> | So someone needs to start doing some reviewing |
| 13:15 | <Philip`> | I have a better monitor than I had a month ago |
| 13:15 | <Dashiva> | Maybe you have a good monitor but at the wrong angle |
| 13:16 | <Philip`> | except now it's glossy, so I can't look at it straight on because I'll see my face and get distracted, so I have to look downwards at a bit of an angle |
| 13:22 | <da3d> | Glossy monitors are broken by design. |
| 13:23 | <Lachy> | da3d, glossy monitors with good anti-reflective coating on them aren't that bad |
| 13:24 | <hsivonen> | glossy and anti-reflective seem mutually exclusive |
| 13:24 | <hsivonen> | glossy monitors are evil |
| 13:26 | <Lachy> | not entirely. You would get the glass cover over the LCD, like on the new MacBooks with glossy display, but that glass can be coated with anti-reflective coating so it looks glossy without reflecting everything |
| 13:26 | Philip` | doesn't like it, but the computer was pretty cheap so he can't expect it to be great |
| 13:27 | hsivonen | hasn't inspected the latest MacBooks |
| 13:28 | <hsivonen> | but the screen on the MacBooks that were current in Q2 of 2008 sucks |
| 13:28 | <hsivonen> | I run mine lid closed except when traveling, so it's not a huge problem |
| 13:29 | <hsivonen> | also, the LED Cinema Display sucks |
| 13:29 | <Lachy> | I have an iMac with a glossy display, and the screen on that really isn't bad at all |
| 13:30 | <da3d> | The only glossy screen I have is on my phone, but I can tolerate it only because it's full of OLED awesomeness. |
| 13:30 | <yatil> | I like my macbook pro glossy screen… what exactly has that to do with HTML? |
| 13:30 | <yatil> | ;) |
| 13:31 | <beowulf> | you cannot see the HTML without the glossy monitor |
| 13:31 | <hsivonen> | beowulf: ITYM "with" |
| 13:32 | <Philip`> | It's more like you cannot see the HTML issues graph with a glossy monitor which prevents you from looking straight on and therefore causes colour distortion |
| 13:32 | <Philip`> | Maybe HTML should make glossy monitors non-conforming |
| 13:32 | <beowulf> | i can't see the issues graph because of my browser, my ips panel rocks though |
| 13:32 | <Philip`> | s/HTML/HTML5/ |
| 13:33 | <hsivonen> | http://www.hrd.qut.edu.au/healthsafety/worksafely/highGloss.jsp |
| 13:40 | <Hixie> | i kinda like my chart |
| 13:41 | <Hixie> | it'll update daily |
| 13:41 | <Lachy> | Philip`, we should make "Best Viewed with a Matte Display" buttons :-) |
| 13:46 | gsnedders | hates his glossy MBP |
| 13:46 | <gsnedders> | (and this is before they got really bad) |
| 13:57 | <Philip`> | Just so I don't forget this link: "The BBC is publishing RDFa in the form of program reviews" is for the music reviews linked from http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/ (not TV programme reviews) |
| 14:00 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Looks like the licensing information isn't RFDa |
| 14:00 | <Philip`> | s/TV programme reviews/TV programme listings/ |
| 14:00 | <zcorpan> | heycam: yt? |
| 14:01 | <Philip`> | jgraham: I don't think RDFa has a requirement saying "You MUST use RDFa for absolutely all metadata on your page" |
| 14:01 | <Philip`> | jgraham: Seems they're just using RDFa that has an actual effect, i.e. Google's RDFa-ish review markup |
| 14:01 | <zcorpan> | heycam: "Need to test how implementations actually behave when passed too few or too many arguments." - i'd like this to be resolved, so i know how to write a test for new Worker() |
| 14:12 | <Philip`> | Oh no, HTML5 removed its X3D support :-( |
| 14:29 | Philip` | tries to work out how to set IE8 to use Google in its search box |
| 14:30 | <Philip`> | Seems I have to do "Find more providers...", and then select the "Search" category (from a list of about two dozen), and then look right at the bottom of the second page of results |
| 14:33 | <TabAtkins> | Hm, really? Mine set itself up with google right from the start. |
| 14:34 | <Philip`> | Mine defaulted to Bing |
| 14:34 | <Philip`> | and I missed the usual startup provider-selection thing since I had to reboot to get the network working |
| 15:26 | <TabAtkins> | Hmm. I fear that using <dt>/<dd> in <details> will cause people to think that <dl> stands for "details list". |
| 15:27 | <TabAtkins> | And then be disappointed when it *doesn't* produce an accordion. |
| 15:27 | <jgraham> | I fear the axiomatic proof |
| 15:28 | <TabAtkins> | haha |
| 15:28 | <TabAtkins> | Who was it that published that? It's been so long. |
| 15:28 | TabAtkins | goes to look it up on Hixie's blog. |
| 15:31 | <TabAtkins> | Hehehe, I forgot how awesome the Proof is. |
| 15:54 | <erlehmann> | TabAtkins, link? |
| 15:55 | <TabAtkins> | erlehmann: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hixie+axiomatic+proof |
| 15:56 | <erlehmann> | TabAtkins, that was before my time |
| 15:56 | <TabAtkins> | Before mine too. I found it originally while trawling Hixie's blog. |
| 15:56 | <Philip`> | erlehmann: Time is rendered irrelevant by archives |
| 15:57 | <Philip`> | Well, half of time, anyway |
| 15:57 | <erlehmann> | Philip`, lets not get existential in here. I am not intimidated by a bunch of characters !! |
| 15:57 | <erlehmann> | btw: ASCII portal is out \e/ |
| 15:58 | <TabAtkins> | i know! |
| 15:58 | <TabAtkins> | woo! |
| 16:04 | <TabAtkins> | Yay, birthday weekend will be scottish-themed this year. |
| 16:05 | <TabAtkins> | (at the Renaissance festival this year, which my birthday always falls during) |
| 16:11 | <TabAtkins> | Hm, the file|save/open thing for apps seems to make sense. |
| 16:14 | <erlehmann> | TabAtkins, so the axiomatic proof says that a spec that makes violations of another spec possible is unpossible ? |
| 16:15 | <TabAtkins> | Not quite. As best as I can understand, it's saying that any changes to the specification that aren't specifically allowed change the semantics of the specification. |
| 16:16 | <TabAtkins> | Specifically, CSS and XBL apparently change the semantics of HTML. |
| 16:16 | <erlehmann> | CSS changes semantics ? |
| 16:17 | <erlehmann> | well, i can't argue against that. axiomatic proof is axiomatic, at last. ;D |
| 16:17 | <Lachy> | erlehmann, yes. Didn't you read the *axiomatic proof*? |
| 16:17 | <TabAtkins> | According to the Axiomatic Proof. |
| 16:17 | <TabAtkins> | Indeed. |
| 16:18 | <hsivonen> | did Axiomatic Proof show up on a mailing list again? |
| 16:19 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Sadly not |
| 16:19 | <beowulf> | I feel the urge to watch Wall·E |
| 16:19 | <TabAtkins> | No, jgraham mentioned it. |
| 16:19 | <TabAtkins> | beowulf: give in. It's a good urge. |
| 16:20 | <beowulf> | All your axiomatic proofs will be catered for on the Axiom |
| 16:21 | <TabAtkins> | Man, I'm gonna have to go manually implement dirtying for my inputs. Stupid bug reports asking for stupid delayed validation until the stupid second input in the pair is filled in. |
| 16:21 | TabAtkins | goes to request a :dirty pseudoclass. |
| 16:26 | <erlehmann> | beowulf, cluster !! |
| 16:28 | <Philip`> | "Before I dwelve into XAML's superior model and eventual (defacto) conquest, let me preemptively squelch XUL rebuttals." - 'dwelve' is a cool word, even if it doesn't exist |
| 16:28 | <Philip`> | (Also, does anyone actually use XAML for anything?) |
| 16:29 | <Philip`> | (Ah, apparently it's used for Silverlight and stuff) |
| 16:29 | <beowulf> | hsivonen's html5 presentation told me XAML was in Silverlight |
| 16:30 | <beowulf> | see? always learning. always. |
| 16:44 | <hsivonen> | Avalon, XAML, WPF-E, Silverlight |
| 18:03 | <JonathanNeal> | What would be a clever classname for the first h1 element within a section/article/aside |
| 18:05 | <Rik|work> | h1:first-child ? |
| 18:09 | <TabAtkins> | h1:first-of-type, actually. |
| 18:09 | <Rik|work> | yeah right :) |
| 18:09 | TabAtkins | is sad that there isn't a more general :first-of pseudoclass. |
| 18:09 | <JonathanNeal> | Well, ie6 won't accept first-child type selectors. |
| 18:09 | <TabAtkins> | I wanna select the first thing with a particular class, frex. |
| 18:09 | <TabAtkins> | Then .first-of-type |
| 18:10 | <zcorpan> | * html { display:none } |
| 18:10 | <zcorpan> | problem solved |
| 18:10 | <Rik|work> | TabAtkins: :first-of(selector) like :not ? |
| 18:10 | <TabAtkins> | Rik|work: yeah |
| 18:11 | <TabAtkins> | But :first-of() sounds kinda weird. Better to be just :first() or something. :first(h1). |
| 18:11 | <TabAtkins> | :first(h1) would be equivalent to h1:first-of-type, that is. |
| 18:12 | <TabAtkins> | Also: "first" has officially become not a word at this point. >_< |
| 18:13 | <JonathanNeal> | Well, I'm just trying to label the elements that will shot up in outliner. |
| 18:14 | <JonathanNeal> | show |
| 18:14 | <JonathanNeal> | I was calling them .section-title but I thought it could be better. |
| 18:15 | <TabAtkins> | .outlinee |
| 18:15 | <TabAtkins> | since they're significant to the outlin*er* |
| 18:32 | <hsivonen> | 60 seconds to learn prefixes is a rather Panglossian on xmlns |
| 18:32 | <hsivonen> | s/on/view on/ |
| 19:28 | <Philip`> | Does anything say that documents must not have parse errors? |
| 19:29 | Philip` | can't find any such thing |
| 19:29 | <Philip`> | (I was looking at "Any byte or sequences of bytes in the original byte stream that is misinterpreted for compatibility is a parse error" but don't see where that translates into a requirement on documents) |
| 19:30 | <gsnedders> | In XML? |
| 19:30 | <gsnedders> | Oh, in HTML 5 that must be |
| 19:31 | gsnedders | thought you were referring to my few-minutes-ago-post |
| 19:31 | <Philip`> | I don't care about XML |
| 19:31 | <gsnedders> | Sensible. |
| 19:31 | <Philip`> | except when I can break it |
| 19:32 | <Philip`> | Actually I don't really care about anything except when I can break it |
| 19:32 | <Philip`> | Breaking things is fun |
| 19:32 | <gsnedders> | Do you like music? |
| 19:32 | <Philip`> | Not unless I can break it |
| 19:37 | <zcorpan> | Philip`: #writing has the requirement for documents |
| 20:13 | masinter | argues to TAG that we schedule joint IRC sessions |
| 20:20 | <Steve^> | how do you shut people like me up during them? |
| 20:20 | <masinter> | certainly wouldn't want you to shut up... what's the point of that? |
| 20:21 | <Steve^> | you would want to keep some agenda and keep people on track |
| 20:21 | <Steve^> | I suppose the chair could kick people who didn't calm down when asked to |
| 20:22 | <masinter> | i'm scribing the tag meeting right now in another window will answer later |
| 20:30 | <masinter> | IRC needs less moderation than phone or F2F meetings, since random chatter can be ignored. and if people aren't calm, well, we're asking the questions wrong |
| 20:32 | <Philip`> | Or the people are just trolls |
| 20:36 | <JonathanNeal> | Bummer. The http://html5.validator.nu/ validator not like <meta content="chrome=1" http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" /> |
| 20:37 | <JonathanNeal> | (does not like) |
| 20:37 | masinter | wonders if anyone looked at the media feature RFCs before doing X-UA-compatible |
| 20:38 | <masinter> | or was it NIH? |
| 20:41 | <Philip`> | masinter: Seems like unneeded complexity, when the goal was simply to have an IE-specific flag that could be set via either HTTP headers or a tag in the HTML document |
| 20:42 | <masinter> | what's the namespace in which 'chrome' is a name? |
| 20:43 | <Philip`> | The global namespace |
| 20:43 | <masinter> | seems like it means spinning up another registry, which is unnecessary overhead, requires some organization to maintain it |
| 20:43 | <Philip`> | Why would it need a registry? |
| 20:44 | <masinter> | how do i find out what 'chrome' means? |
| 20:44 | <Philip`> | You search the internet for a web browser called "Chrome" |
| 20:44 | <hsivonen> | masinter: you read a blog post on google's site |
| 20:44 | <zcorpan> | http://www.google.com/search?q=chrome+x-ua-compatible |
| 20:45 | <Philip`> | The feature is only useful for UAs with significant market share, because otherwise no author is ever going to bother setting the flag for that UA |
| 20:45 | <Philip`> | so there won't be many and there won't be accidental collisions |
| 20:46 | <hsivonen> | one can erly o trademarks to avoid collisions |
| 20:46 | <hsivonen> | *rely |
| 20:46 | <Philip`> | *on |
| 20:47 | <zcorpan> | chrome could have used any other indicator to flip the switch |
| 20:47 | Philip` | notes that people have trouble even getting the x-ua-compatible syntax right, so he wouldn't like it to be any more powerful or flexible |
| 20:47 | <zcorpan> | but probably chose the x-ua-compatible meta because people are already familiar with it for switching ie engines |
| 20:48 | <Philip`> | I suppose this means Chrome is never going to implement x-ua-compatible itself |
| 20:48 | <Philip`> | otherwise a load of sites would be unintentionally causing themselves to render in Chrome's v1 compatibility mode |
| 20:49 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: it could also be seens as an elaborate practical joke on IE engine switching |
| 20:49 | <hsivonen> | *seen |
| 20:49 | hsivonen | blames text input method |
| 20:50 | <JonathanNeal> | Well, I got back to work on the Liferay website Monday and I've got the mockup of our homepage done @ http://madison.thewikies.com/liferay/wireframe/ --- outlines nicely |
| 20:50 | <masinter> | ((will discuss later must go back)) |
| 22:15 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie, is it too late for the Google TPAC sponsorship? fantasai just convinced me that I can afford it. |
| 22:17 | <gsnedders> | That little bully! |
| 22:17 | <gsnedders> | (I say in jest.) |
| 22:17 | <TabAtkins> | Man, for serious. |
| 22:17 | <TabAtkins> | ^_^ |
| 22:18 | <gsnedders> | I can't be too mean to her (or Hixie, for that matter), as she did pay for dinner for me one time last TPAC. |
| 22:18 | <gsnedders> | Ah, the benefits of being unemployed :P |
| 22:20 | <TabAtkins> | "benefits" |
| 22:20 | <tantek> | gsnedders, will you be at the upcoming TPAC? |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | tantek: no |
| 22:21 | <TabAtkins> | tantek: you're on the short list of people fantasai told me to beg for housing over tpac |
| 22:22 | <tantek> | TabAtkins - I myself may be doing some housing begging - I'm in SF which is over an hour of driving each way away from the TPAC. |
| 22:22 | <TabAtkins> | k. you weren't the first person on my list, but you were the closest to hand. |
| 22:24 | <tantek> | btw, for anyone in SF, we're having a microformats dinner meetup/drinkup tonight: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/4521748/ |
| 22:30 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: e-mail me |
| 22:30 | <TabAtkins> | Will do. |
| 22:45 | <Lachy> | tantek, TabAtkins, I'm also looking for cheap or free accommodation for TPAC |
| 22:45 | <Lachy> | one alternative is to share a room at the hotel, which effectively cuts the price in half for each |
| 22:47 | <TabAtkins> | I probably can't even do half, though. |
| 22:49 | <Lachy> | staying at the Santa Clara Mariott is about $192 (incl. taxes), or roughly $96 each, per night. I know that seems a little much. |
| 22:49 | <Lachy> | but there's a place that I believe is across the road, according to google maps, that is half that price. |
| 22:49 | gsnedders | shared a room last year for 142 EUR for the entire week |
| 22:49 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, you shared with Ben, didn't you? |
| 22:50 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: No, Shawn |
| 22:50 | <Lachy> | oh |
| 22:50 | <gsnedders> | (We were originally going to share one room between three, but the hotel didn't have any rooms free to do that… so we got two rooms for the same price) |
| 22:50 | <Lachy> | Shawn who? What's his last name? |
| 22:51 | <gsnedders> | smedero |
| 22:51 | <gsnedders> | Medero |
| 22:51 | <Lachy> | oh, right |
| 22:51 | <Lachy> | for some reason, I don't remember meeting him. But I must have. |
| 22:52 | <TabAtkins> | I'm not sure what the problem is with sharing across more than 2 people. Worst case someone sleeps on the floor, if noone wants to share a queen or whatever. |
| 22:52 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: The room myself and Shawn had was tiny. You could just about walk around the end of the two twin beds :) |
| 22:53 | <TabAtkins> | ah, twins can't be shared. |
| 22:53 | <TabAtkins> | not without getting a bit too friendly. |
| 22:53 | gsnedders | facepalms |
| 22:53 | <Lachy> | well, I was in a photo with him. So I definitely did. http://www.flickr.com/photos/hendry/2964510881/ I just don't remember him. :-) |
| 22:53 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: I'm under 18! How dare you wreck my innocent ears! |
| 22:54 | <gsnedders> | Oh dear, I look horrific there |
| 22:54 | <TabAtkins> | You're rockin' the fro, whatever. |
| 22:54 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, don't worry. You've looked worse. |
| 22:54 | <gsnedders> | True. |
| 22:54 | <TabAtkins> | Hahaha, that's probably the worst consolation ever. |
| 22:55 | <gsnedders> | (And you haven't even seen one of the photos from my ball where it looks as if I have no eyes) |
| 22:55 | TabAtkins | facepalms too. |
| 22:55 | <gsnedders> | (or rather, IIRC, no pupils: just white) |
| 22:55 | <TabAtkins> | I just now got why you were facepalming. |
| 22:55 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, I saw one of those on facebook. I saw enough. |
| 22:56 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: Wrecking my innocence, I'm telling you! |
| 22:56 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: You didn't see the worst ones, they aren't there :) |
| 22:56 | <Lachy> | haha |
| 22:56 | <TabAtkins> | Unless the uk is a magical land of happy fairies, your ears are far from innocent at that age. |
| 22:56 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: Heck, the age of majority in Scotland is 16, and you can be legally married and doing unmentionable things at that age :P |
| 22:56 | <gsnedders> | *do |
| 22:57 | <TabAtkins> | Our age of majority is 18, but you can be married much younger than that (depends on the area). |
| 22:57 | <gsnedders> | (In England, Wales, and NI you have to be 18, unless you have your parents consent, then you can get married at 16) |
| 22:57 | <Lachy> | TabAtkins, that's an interesting idea. The rooms are meant to accommodate up to 4 people, with 2 double beds. I could take an air bed and sleep on the floor. |
| 22:58 | <TabAtkins> | so, 5 of us in one? |
| 22:58 | <TabAtkins> | that's the sort of math i like to hear. |
| 22:59 | <TabAtkins> | (though, if arronei says yes, i'll be taken care of anyway) |
| 22:59 | <TabAtkins> | But he's on vacation, so we've probably got time to plan all sorts of sleepover activitiees. |
| 22:59 | <TabAtkins> | i vote pillow fight in undies. |
| 22:59 | <TabAtkins> | then we talk about all the boys we've kissed. |
| 22:59 | <Lachy> | I ain't kissin any boys! |
| 22:59 | gsnedders | facepalms |
| 23:00 | <TabAtkins> | Missin' out, Lachy. |
| 23:00 | TabAtkins | is happily married to a woman. |
| 23:00 | <gsnedders> | Pfff. Girls > boys. |
| 23:00 | <Lachy> | TabAtkins, gsnedders will join in. |
| 23:00 | <Dashiva> | gsnedders: Always so self-depreciating |
| 23:00 | <Hixie> | what's wrong with boys |
| 23:00 | <Hixie> | i'm a boy |
| 23:01 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: You're immature and annoying. |
| 23:01 | <Hixie> | well, true |
| 23:01 | <Dashiva> | Also, cooties |
| 23:01 | <Lachy> | Hixie, nothing is wrong with boys. There's just something wrong with a straight guy kissing other boys. |
| 23:01 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: Only if I am a boy :P |
| 23:01 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: Well, believe in innate bisexuality and then all your problems are solved :P |
| 23:01 | <Dashiva> | gsnedders: That seems a rather safe bet |
| 23:02 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: i don't think people really get to chose their sexuality |
| 23:02 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Nor do I. |
| 23:04 | <gsnedders> | (Really, do you take everything I say seriously?) |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | yes |
| 23:04 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Naïve. |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | i also take everything Philip` says seriously |
| 23:04 | <Dashiva> | I think people who kiss boys are self-selecting anyhow |
| 23:05 | <TabAtkins> | ?_? |
| 23:05 | <TabAtkins> | The only people who kiss boys are the ones that want to kiss boys? |
| 23:05 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Well, then, I'm an incredibly innocent homophobic fundamentalist Christian. |
| 23:06 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: i know |
| 23:06 | <Dashiva> | You can't hide things from Hixie |
| 23:06 | <gsnedders> | Wait, what? He knows about last night? Shit. |
| 23:07 | <Dashiva> | gsnedders: You're a fundamentalist Christian, what's one more omniscient Big Brother? |
| 23:07 | <Lachy> | woah, tell us about last night? |
| 23:08 | <Lachy> | don't worry, it'll just be between us ;-) |
| 23:08 | <gsnedders> | You take what I say seriously? ;) |
| 23:09 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: I finished "The Great Gatsby". |
| 23:09 | <Dashiva> | gsnedders: Also, enjoy your eternal damnation for saying "shit" |
| 23:09 | <Lachy> | well done. |
| 23:09 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: dammit. |
| 23:09 | <Lachy> | Dashiva, eternal damnation only comes from blasphemy |
| 23:10 | <gsnedders> | All I said was this Halibut is good enough for Jehovah! |
| 23:10 | <TabAtkins> | Also: doubting Jesus in your heart |
| 23:10 | <Dashiva> | What is it then? Really long but not quite eternal damnation? |
| 23:11 | <Lachy> | personally, I'm looking forward to my eternal damnation. The brochure makes it sound exciting. |
| 23:11 | <TabAtkins> | http://dresdencodak.com/2005/11/29/secular-heaven/ |
| 23:13 | <Lachy> | heh |
| 23:22 | <TabAtkins> | should I attend the wednesday plenary? and the wednesday plenary reception? |
| 23:22 | <Hixie> | if you'll be in the area anyway you might as well |
| 23:23 | <TabAtkins> | kk |
| 23:23 | <Hixie> | insofar as teh whole thing is a waste of time, the plenary is no more of a waste of time than the meeting itself |
| 23:23 | <Hixie> | but i'm sure you'll enjoy it if it's your first one :-) |
| 23:24 | <Hixie> | i'm just jaded after years of going to these and seeing no significant progress made each time |
| 23:24 | <TabAtkins> | cool |
| 23:24 | <Hixie> | (compared to the amount of progress an average week brings in the whatwg, i mean) |
| 23:24 | <othermaciej> | you should go, it's a good way to meet people |
| 23:25 | <TabAtkins> | I'm sad that "omnivore" and "vegetarian" are represented in the meal choices, but not ovo-lacto-carnivore. |
| 23:25 | <Hixie> | yeah that really is the main benefit |
| 23:25 | <tantek> | Hixie - that's a little harsh, you and I have both been in working group meetings at plenaries that have made good progress. |
| 23:25 | <Hixie> | tantek: html5 makes more progress by e-mail every week than the csswg has done since 2004. |
| 23:25 | <tantek> | plus, don't forget the "your test suite isn't wearing any clothes" panel we were both on :) |
| 23:25 | <Lachy> | the social aspect is one of the major advantages of events like TPAC, since it makes working with others much easier if you know them personally in some way |
| 23:26 | <Hixie> | tantek: yeah, and look how much help that was |
| 23:26 | <Hixie> | Lachy: indeed |
| 23:26 | <Hixie> | i just wish we made these things really about the social aspect rather than pretend they were productive |
| 23:26 | <Hixie> | we should all go white water rafting or something |
| 23:26 | <tantek> | Hixie, wait, you mean all subsequent test suites weren't 100% valid and based on clear conformance criteria in the specs via explicit links? |
| 23:26 | <Lachy> | yeah, I'm up for that! |
| 23:27 | <Lachy> | is there a place to do that nearby? |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | tantek: the subsequent test suites have been as crap as they were before |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | Lachy: dunno :-) |
| 23:27 | <Lachy> | well, I'm sure we could do something fun on Saturday. |
| 23:28 | <Hixie> | anyone up for a game of Twilight Imperium III? |
| 23:28 | <Hixie> | or BSG the board game? |
| 23:28 | tantek | would be up for some late night Settlers of Catan. |
| 23:28 | <TabAtkins> | I'm in for anything boardgamey. |
| 23:28 | <Lachy> | maybe. Never played it before, but we could do that one evening |
| 23:28 | <TabAtkins> | I am sorely starved for board games. |
| 23:29 | <TabAtkins> | especially delicious eurogames. |
| 23:29 | <Lachy> | I'm looking forward to playing Werewolf again |
| 23:29 | <TabAtkins> | Anyone got Steve Zilles's email? |
| 23:29 | gsnedders | wants to be there, now. |
| 23:29 | gsnedders | grumps |
| 23:29 | <beowulf> | catan++ |
| 23:30 | <Hixie> | people still play settlers? |
| 23:30 | <Hixie> | wow |
| 23:30 | <TabAtkins> | Some of us have never played it, geez. |
| 23:30 | TabAtkins | has dumb friends. |
| 23:30 | <Lachy> | I've played it once |
| 23:30 | <tantek> | Hixie - it continues to get new users, just like HTML :) |
| 23:30 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: you're not missing much :-P |
| 23:30 | <Hixie> | it's like the new Monopoly |
| 23:31 | <beowulf> | monopoly++ |
| 23:31 | <Hixie> | played by the people who don't know board games :-) |
| 23:31 | <TabAtkins> | Monopoly-- |
| 23:31 | <TabAtkins> | >_< |
| 23:31 | <Hixie> | monopoly is basically a less elaborate version of Killer Bunnies |
| 23:32 | gsnedders | heads off to sleep |
| 23:33 | <gsnedders> | (and probably read a bit more Edgar Allan Poe) |
| 23:33 | <TabAtkins> | So, Zilles. |
| 23:33 | <erlehmann> | TabAtkins, i would like to see a Wesnoth board game. |
| 23:33 | <TabAtkins> | erlehmann: Omg that would be nice |
| 23:34 | <beowulf> | i think my board game credentials were insulted somewhere there |
| 23:34 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 23:34 | <Hixie> | is there a list anywhere of when the htmlwg chairmanships changed? |
| 23:34 | <TabAtkins> | The htmlwg list, presumably. |
| 23:47 | Dashiva | is trying to copy (clone) a DOM node into a MSXML document... and failing |
| 23:49 | <Hixie> | http://damowmow.com/playground/htmlwg/chart.html |
| 23:49 | <Hixie> | the three changes of chairs line up almost perfect to the three periods of volatility |
| 23:50 | <Hixie> | (i used the dates of the announcements; mike and maciej actually started taking chair responsibilities a few weeks before they were appointed |
| 23:50 | <Hixie> | which i guess is why their periods of volatility happen shortly before the line for their announcement) |
| 23:51 | <Hixie> | my conclusion: to make progress, we'll have to change chairs every few weeks |
| 23:52 | <TabAtkins> | Makes sense to me. |
| 23:52 | <Philip`> | Musical chairs! |
| 23:53 | <TabAtkins> | Now if only we can get them to *actually* sing. |
| 23:57 | <othermaciej> | I intend to cause more issues to be closed |
| 23:57 | <othermaciej> | we'll see if it works |
